Wakilii

Aaubuka v Onek & 2 Others (Election Petition Appeal 1 of 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2002] UGCA 7 · 2002 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Oral application during election petition appeal hearing for extension of time to file the record of appeal out of time
Decision
Oral application for extension of time dismissed; appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The appellant's record of appeal in an election petition appeal was filed out of the thirty-day period prescribed by rule 31 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996. Counsel made an oral application during the hearing for extension of time. The Court held that while rule 4 permits extension of time even after an act has been done, and rule 52(2)(d) allows informal applications during hearing, the applicant must adduce evidence demonstrating sufficient reason. As counsel adduced no such evidence, the oral application lacked merit and was dismissed. Consequently the appeal was incompetent and was struck out with costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Oral application for extension of time dismissed; appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents

Facts

The appellant, Aaubuka Okullo Jallon Anthony, was a parliamentary candidate for the Chumo County constituency in Kitgum District. The election was held on 26 June 2001, and the first respondent, Onek Obaloker Hillary, was declared the winner. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed an election petition in the High Court against the respondents. The High Court dismissed the petition on 26 October 2001. The appellant filed a notice of appeal in the High Court on 2 November 2001 and a memorandum of appeal in the Court of Appeal on 8 November 2001. He filed the record of appeal in the Court of Appeal on 19 February 2002, which was outside the thirty-day period stipulated by rule 31 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996. When the appeal was fixed for hearing, counsel for the appellant made an oral application for extension of time to file the record out of time, but adduced no evidence demonstrating sufficient reason for the delay.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal had power to grant an oral application for extension of time within which to file the record of appeal made informally during the hearing.
  2. Whether the applicant had adduced sufficient reason to justify an extension of time to file the record of appeal out of time.

Orders

  • The oral application for extension of time to file the record of appeal is dismissed.
  • The appeal is incompetent and is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Power to Extend After Act Done
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules allows the court to extend time for sufficient reason even where the act in question has already been done, whether before or after the expiration of the time limited.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Informal Application During Hearing
An application for extension of time may be made informally in the course of the hearing under rule 52(2)(d) of the Court of Appeal Rules, but it will be granted only in exceptional circumstances and where the applicant adduces evidence demonstrating sufficient reason for the extension.
Electoral Law — Election Petition Appeals — Time for Filing Record of Appeal
Under rule 31 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996, an appellant must lodge the record of appeal with the Registrar within thirty days after filing the memorandum of appeal; failure to do so renders the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996 (S.I. No. 27 of 1996) r.31
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.4
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.12(3)(a)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.52
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.52(2)(d)

Cases cited (1)

  • Shanti V Hindocha and Others [1973] E.A 207

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Aaubuka v Onek & 2 Others (Election Petition Appeal 1 of 2001) [2002] UGCA 7 (3 April 2002)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.